Immupharma Share Discussion Threads

[gclark] 15/5/2018 14:39

I've answered my own question. This is the phase 2a study I believe:
hxxps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/art.24027

[bmcb5] 15/5/2018 14:38

Understood Nobby. I've just never seen the point. All input is good. Some seem to treat it like a game of goodies vs baddies.

[nobbygnome] 15/5/2018 14:37

> mcsquared

Sadly I came on to this far too late to comment before the trial started. However, I made my comments based on thorough scientific analysis well before the trial results. I had a discourse with Muller where she kept on contradicting her own data with regard to drug levels and dosing. It was truly bizarre!

[mcsquared] 15/5/2018 14:35

Nobbygnome - did you not say that you challenged IMM over the dosing level before the trial?

[nobbygnome] 15/5/2018 14:34

>> bmcb

Thanks for the wise words. However, you are wasting your time. If you say anything against their current long position you are trashed. Strangely the few of us who did have all been proved right so far. Just saying that will annoy them and lead to a load of hate even though it is true!

[nobbygnome] 15/5/2018 14:32

👍LOL. Good point! There would always have been a statistician involved too.

[bmcb5] 15/5/2018 14:32

It seems to me that Nobby is expressing his opinion, much like everybody else is. He appears to have more knowledge the the average contributor. You should value his input, rather than accuse him, imo

[francisgalton] 15/5/2018 14:31

Hopefully they would also have employed a statistician too though ;-)

[nobbygnome] 15/5/2018 14:30

And I would have been one of the people doing the due diligence and I say there is absolutely no chance of a deal.

[francisgalton] 15/5/2018 14:28

For Nobby gnome

Personally the option to test IMMs theory for a quick and dirty £12m with the ability to concurrently reformulate in the background is to me very attractive.

There are many ways to play this going forwards and it is important not to reach early conclusions before more data comes out.

What if the full data justified eg a 12 week trial in the anti-dsDNA patients. Becomes even more attractive then.

The full data will affect matters. Hopefully they will release more as soon as possible and the share price will react according to the strength of that news.

Anyhow the question is can a deal be struck. I think that there is a good chance of that and if so the share price will be much higher than now.

[rnsday] 15/5/2018 14:27

No they don't but nobby certainly does not either but has posted here many times it is 🤔

[nobbygnome] 15/5/2018 14:26

>> rns

How many times have I said this! The drug has some pharmacological activity but not at the doses used. My interest is in the way forward for getting the drug to patients in the most efficient manner. This has been my precise field for 34 years so I know what I am talking about. The management messed it up big time here due to their naivety.

Getting drugs to patients in the best way has been my life for 27 years!

Nobby

[bmcb5] 15/5/2018 14:25

Does anybody know for a fact that it isn't dead in the water?

[rnsday] 15/5/2018 14:23

I have asked a few sensible questions to you why are you still here when you think the drug is a dud ? What are you going to say if it does get approval/go to market ?...you can not be 100% on this so I have said before you are misleading investors saying it is dead in the water when you don't know that is 100% fact

[nobbygnome] 15/5/2018 14:20

>> bmcb

Precisely! Perhaps people are getting it at last.

[mcsquared] 15/5/2018 14:20

Thank goodness that any decision by regulatory officials will be by consensus opinion from experts in command of the full facts.

[bmcb5] 15/5/2018 14:20

There's a logical difference between 'they can't prove it works' and 'it doesn't work'

But in practical terms, surely it means the same thing here?

[nobbygnome] 15/5/2018 14:19

>> Francis

Che et al don't agree about approval on this data. It would be good if you called them out, when they make such claims.

Ho hum.

Nobby

[francisgalton] 15/5/2018 14:17

For Nobby gnome

I agree that approval on these results is unlikely.

However, it would be quite possible for an amended SPA based upon a properly powered 300 anti-dsDNA patient trial.

Cost £12m not £100m and within the range of financial attractiveness for a Pharma.

[nobbygnome] 15/5/2018 14:16

>> tenniselbow

That is worth a thumbs up! A sensible question at last....

Nobby

[rnsday] 15/5/2018 14:12

@gardengnome ☝️ʊ39;😂😂;😂🤔😂😂

[tenniselbow] 15/5/2018 14:12

What is the company worth as a cash shell

[nobbygnome] 15/5/2018 14:11

PS and you also haven't proved that it is a fair coin. So you can't make any reliable conclusion about the final result. Agreed?

[nobbygnome] 15/5/2018 14:08

>> Francis

I have never claimed to be a statistician but I know enough to get by. How much do you know about PK, drug levels and cell biology? That is my expert field.

I have enough experience of the industry to know that a drug which gets a p value of nearly 0.3 will not get approved. No amount of post hoc analysis will persuade any regulator and if by any chance they opened the door, GSK's lawyers would be all over it like a rash, which is why it won't happen.

Nobby